Nearly two decades on,\nUnderstanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action<\/em> (Champion et al\n2001) remains a key source for research topics on the first millennium BC, with\nits overarching themes of chronological framework, settlement patterns,\nmaterial culture, rationality and social-economic change being as relevant\ntoday as they were in 2001. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For Late Bronze Age studies, the British Museum\u2019s first volume of Bronze Age Review<\/em> (2008) attempted to\nlay the foundations for a British Bronze Age research agenda, with topics of\nlandscape, burial, settlement, interaction and society looming large in the\ncontributions. Yet with no subsequent volumes in the series, this goal was\nnever fully achieved. We also have to go back over ten years to locate other\nagenda-setting publication and overviews covering the period in question\n(Haselgrove and Pope 2007; Haselgrove and Moore 2007; Yates 2007), all of which\nhave included aspects directly or indirectly relevant to the archaeology of the\neastern region, and have shaped the direction and tone of subsequent research. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Whilst it is a little disconcerting that we cannot point to\nsimilar texts in recent years, the significance of some works may only be\nrecognised with hindsight. At an intra-regional level, however, a number of\nimportant county-based overviews have reached publication. These include a collection\nof papers on the Iron Age in northern East Anglia (Davies 2011), and overviews\nof later Bronze Age and Iron Age in Essex (Sealey 2012; Yates 2012) and Hertfordshire\n(Bryant 2015). The importance of these works should not be underestimated, and\nwill be a key reference point and entry for researchers and practitioners\nattempting to grapple with the extraordinary wealth of regional data there now\nis for this period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is beyond the scope of this agenda to provide a comprehensive\noverview of all the major archaeological projects that have revealed evidence\nof this period in the region since 2011. The number of sites now excavated is\ntruly vast. Moreover, with the scale and pace of commercial archaeology looking\nset to continue, if not accelerate, maintaining a handle and sense of regional perspective\non this data is going to be a major challenge. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Late Bronze Age studies, the excavations of the palisade-enclosed\nMust Farm pile-dwelling, Cambridgeshire, are of national and international\nsignificance. The remains of this remarkably preserved short-lived settlement,\nwhich burnt down in the ninth century BC, is providing stunning new insights\ninto all aspects of Late Bronze Age settlement activity and household practice\n(Knight et al<\/em>. 2017). Most striking\nis the richness of the material record, with 121 glass beads recovered, around 190\npieces of metal (socketed axes, sickles, gouges and fragments of spears and\nswords), 180 wooden artefacts (buckets, platters, textile beaters and bobbins),\nat least 117 individual items of fabric and fibre, and an extraordinarily well preserved\nassemblage of pottery. The research potential of the site is unprecedented, and\nthe results of the post-excavation work are likely to transform understandings\nof the period and have far reaching implications of the study of other sites in\nthe region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, excavations have revealed differing\nsurviving signatures of Late Bronze Age settlement in varied landscape\nsettings. Away from the river valleys and fen-edge, the publication of excavations\nat Striplands Farm, Longstanton (Evans and Patten 2011) has documented settlement\nfeatures and a series of large Late Bronze Age waterholes with log ladders and\nrefuse-rich capping fills. By contrast, a large pottery-rich Late Bronze Age\nmidden, situated on a former mid-channel sand ridge of the lower Ouse has been\nextensively excavated, and was associated with a very light cut feature imprint\n(Evans 2016). Further east, midden-like dumps of settlement related material\nwere excavated from a Bronze Age barrow ditch at Fordham on the chalk (Gilmore\n2015), also associated with Late Bronze Age cremations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Suffolk, the last decade has seen more substantive evidence for\nLate Bronze Age settlement finally coming to the fore, with swathes of pits,\npostholes and several roundhouses excavated on the gravels at Flixton Park Quarry,\nFlixton (Boulter 2015). Similar unclosed remains of Late Bronze Age settlement\nhave also been excavated on the light sandy soils in Suffolk at Hartismere High\nSchool, Eye (Caruth 2012), Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville (Heard 2013), whilst\nat Day\u2019s Road, Caple St Mary (Tabor 2014a) features were found on the heavier\nglacial tills. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Comparable scatters of Late Bronze Age pits and postholes have continued\nto be uncovered in Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. Three Late Bronze\nAge-Early Iron Age settlement scatters have been published from the landscape-scale\ninvestigations in and around the Biddenham Loop (2016), Bedfordshire, whilst an\nextensive Late Bronze Age settlement with multiple structures and a cremation\ncemetery has been found at Gadebridge (Last and McDonald 2013), Hertfordshire,\non clay-with-flint geology. Elsewhere in Hertfordshire, Late Bronze Age\nsettlement features and a large well-dated group of Late Bronze Age pottery has\nbeen recovered from Stocks Golf Course, Aldbury (Hunn 2016), and widespread\nscatters of pits and postholes have recently been revealed at Hazel End,\nBishop\u2019s Stortford (Bush 2017). Excavation here also uncovered parts of a rectilinear\nLate Bronze Age enclosure, possibly associated with contemporary field\nboundaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Essex, Late Bronze Age field systems ditches, trackways and enclosures\nhave been published from Clements Park, Southern-On-Sea (Chaffery et al<\/em>. 2013), with further examples\nrecorded at Mill House Farm, Chadwell St Mary (Newton 2015). The later was\nassociated with an extensive swathe of Late Bronze Age settlement features, and\nyielded a large assemblage of pottery. A Late Bronze Age\/Early Iron Age ditched\nenclosure has been excavated at the northern section of the Bedford Western\nBypass (Barker and Meckseper 2015), Bedfordshire, whilst other Late Bronze Age\nfield system ditches have been tentatively identified at Howe Dell Playing\nField, Hatfield (Keir 2013), and Gadebridge (Last and McDonald 2013), Hertfordshire.\nTo date, no unambiguous Late Bronze Age enclosures or field system ditches have\nbeen identified in Suffolk, Norfolk or Cambridgeshire. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The ringwork sites of Springfield Lyons (Brown and Medlycott 2013)\nand Mucking South Rings (Evans et al. 2016), Essex, have now reached full\npublication, greatly enhancing the understanding of this category of site. A\nfurther possible ringwork has also been revealed in excavations at Mill House\nFarm, Chadwell St Mary (Newton 2015), whilst other potential ringworks have\nbeen identified in Essex and Norfolk from the assessment of aerial photographs\n(Ingle and Saunders 2011; Bales et al. 2011; Cattermole et al<\/em>. 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The last decade has seen the excavation of numerous Early Iron Age\nsettlement sites in the region. For the most part, the morphology of these is\nsimilar to that of open settlements in the Late Bronze Age. However, greater\ndistinction between the two has emerged from a combination of developments in the\nunderstandings of ceramic sequence, and the more regular use of radiocarbon\ndating. In some instances this has resulted in the reinterpretation of site\nsequences, as at Mucking, Essex, where the Early Iron Age was previously absent\nfrom phasing (Evans et al<\/em>. 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Plans of small Early Iron Age farmstead-type settlements comprising\nscatters of pits, postholes, waterholes and four post-structures have been revealed\nat the Hitchin Grade Separate Scheme (Barlow and Newton 2013) and Park Farm\nIndustrial Estate, Buntingford (Jones 2016), Hertfordshire. In Cambridgeshire,\nsites of this type are now plentiful, with good examples of small settlements\nand occupation scatters at the Peterborough Gas Compressor Station Site,\nGlinton (Rees 2016), Cromwell Community College, Chatteris (Atkins and Percival\n2014), the Milton landfill and Park & Rides Sites, Cambridge (Philips\n2015), Newmarket Road, Cambridge (Tabor 2016a) and Clay Farm, Cambridge (Phillips\nand Mortimer 2012); the latter revealing rare settlement remains and\nsubstantial pottery assemblages dating to the Earliest Iron Age. A number of small\nfarmsteads have also been published from the Biddenham Loop excavations (Luke\n2016), Bedfordshire. Furthermore, areas of Early Iron Age settlement have been\npublished in Essex from Mucking (Evans et\nal<\/em>. 2016) and West Thurrock (Andrews\n2012), whilst others have been identified at Newhall, Harlow (Dyson\n2015) with several occupation scatters recorded along the Bacton to King\u2019s Lynn\nGas Pipeline, Norfolk (Wilson et al<\/em>.\n2012). <\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast to these small farmstead-type occupation sites, excavation\nat Harston Mill (O\u2019Brien 2016) and Trumpington Meadows (Patten 2012a), Cambridgeshire\nhave revealed large, distinctive pit-dominated settlements dating to the end of\nthe Early Iron Age. Both have zones of dense pitting containing hundreds of pits\nyielding vast artefact and faunal assemblages. The sites are also characterised\nby the recovery of significant numbers of animal and human \u2018pit-burials\u2019 and\nfragments of disarticulated human bone, some with cuts marks and signs of\ntrauma. The practices relating to the treatment of human remains at these sites\nis extremely variable (and at others in the region), with some of the loose\nhuman bone being worked\/modified. These distinct types of site appear\nrestricted to southern Cambridgeshire and parts of Bedfordshire, and suggest\nregional variation in the form of Early Iron Age settlement. Interestingly,\nthese aggregated pit-dominated sites in southern Cambridgeshire appear to be\ncontemporary with the construction of local hillforts\/ring-forts; the War\nDitches, Cherry Hinton fort being secured by recent excavation (Pickstone and\nMortimer 2012). <\/p>\n\n\n\n There is growing evidence of extensive routeways and different\nforms of landscape boundary features in the Early Iron Age. Metalled trackways\nand hollow-ways of the period have been excavated at Park Farm Industrial\nEstate (Jones 2016), Hertfordshire and the Bell Language School (Bush and\nMortimer 2015), Cambridgeshire. A series of ditched precursors to the Bran\nDitch, Cambridgeshire have also be radiocarbon dated to the Early Iron Age,\nsuggesting the system of Cambridgeshire Dykes and the East Chiltern Ditches in\nHertfordshire and Bedfordshire may have earlier Iron Age origins (Ladd and\nMortimer forthcoming). Pit alignments dating to both the Early and Middle Iron\nAge have been more widely recorded, with notable examples from the Biddenham\nLoop excavations (Luke 2016), Bedfordshire, Trumpington Meadows (Patten 2012a),\nthe AstraZeneca New Cambridge Site (Tabor 2015), and Bearscroft Farm (Patten\n2016), Cambridgeshire. A single example has now also been excavated at Westley,\nSuffolk (Beverton 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A large number of Middle Iron Age settlement sites have now been\nexcavated in the region, with many more being investigated as part of major\ninfrastructure projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Work over the past ten\nyears has shown that Iron Age settlement was particularly dense in some areas of\nthe region, both on the river terrace gravels and interior claylands. Large scale\nexcavations at sites including Colne Fen (Evans 2013), Summersfield (Patten\n2012), Northstowe (Colins 2017a; b), Bearscroft Farm (Patten 2016) and Clay Farm\n(Philips and Mortimer 2012), Cambridgeshire; Biddenham Loop (Luke 2016) and Broom\nQuarry, Bedfordshire (Tabor 2014; 2016) and Beaulieu (Stocks-Morgan 2016a; b),\nEssex, have revealed Middle Iron Age farmsteads spaced c. 300\u2013500m apart, indicative\nof developed and densely occupied settlement landscapes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Across much of Cambridgeshire and Essex enclosed farmsteads appear\nto be the norm, with both rectilinear and organic-type forms being widely recorded.\nThe examples are now too numerous to list individually, but a representative selection\nare evidenced in the sites mentioned above, with others recorded in Table 1. Details of the size, form and number of enclosures\nin each farmstead varies subtly, some display multiple adjoined compounds, or\nseparate components linked by linear ditches. In general, individual enclosures\nrarely exceed 0.5ha in area, with most being associated with one to five eaves-gully\ndefined roundhouses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Bedfordshire, small enclosures often form a component of\ndiscreet and largely unenclosed farmstead-type settlements on the gravels.\nThese are commonly defined by concentrated clusters of pits and one to two eaves-gully\ndefined roundhouses. Six such sites have been excavated in the Biddenham Loop\ninvestigations (Luke 2016), with further examples at Broom South Quarry (Tabor\n2016); all having the appearance of being relatively short lived. This contrasts\nto the picture emerging from the large scale excavations at Broom Quarry (Tabor\n2014b), where a substantial multi-phase Middle Iron Age settlement has been revealed\nwith 24 roundhouses, 20 settlement enclosures and over 800 pits: the site\nyielded a substantial pottery assemblage, a significant number of associated\nbone groups and other \u2018special deposits\u2019. Here phasing indicates a gradual\nshift from open settlement, with roundhouses situated within a field system, to\nenclosed settlement comprising multiple small enclosures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Other Middle Iron Age sites with multiple enclosures and medium to\nlarge-sized pit clusters have been found at Newmarket Road, Cambridge (Tabor\n2016) and Low Park Corner, Chippenham (Adkins 2013), Cambridgeshire; the former\nhaving over 500 pits. Sites with similar characteristics have also been\nrevealed at Hinxton Road, Duxford (Lyons 2011), Cambridgeshire, and RAF\nLakenheath, Eriswell (Craven 2012), Suffolk, suggesting these may be typical of\nthe Middle Iron Age landscape in southern Cambridgeshire and parts of West\nSuffolk. Interestingly, this distribution also overlaps with the distinctive\nEarly Iron Age aggregated pit-dominated sites mentioned above, hinting at\nelements of continuity in the signature of Early and Middle Iron Age occupation\nin this part of the region. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elsewhere, Middle Iron Age sites have also been increasingly found\nacross the Bedfordshire clays, with small settlements revealed along the A421\ncorridor (Simmonds and Walsh 2013), and rectilinear enclosures and associated\noccupation features at Broadmead Road, Stewartby (Newman and Jeffery 2015) and Queen\nStreet, Stotfold (Gibson and Powell 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Suffolk and Norfolk, excavated Middle Iron Age settlement\nenclosures are still relatively rare, though new sites in Suffolk include a\ncurvilinear enclosure at Days Road, Caple St Mary (Tabor 2014) on the clays,\nand part of a large rectilinear double-ditched enclosure with ditches up to 8m\nwide and over 3m deep at Recreation Way, Mildenhall (Havard and Holt 2012). A\nhost of other potential sites have also been identified from aerial photography\nand geophysical survey across the counties. On the whole, however, open settlement\nappears to be the norm, perhaps even on the clays, as suggested by excavation at\nChalkstone Way, Haverhill (Heard 2016), Suffolk. Yet even within this category\nthere is evident variation in the morphology of the sites and the visibility of\nroundhouses on them. Most seem to comprise relatively light scatters of pits\nand dispersed structural remains, as highlighted by excavations at Ingham\nQuarry, Fornham St Genevieve (Newton and Mustchin 2015), Warren Hill,\nSaxmundham (Clarke 2017), and Moreland Road, Ipswich (Brudenell and Hogan 2013),\nSuffolk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Until recently, relatively few Middle Iron Age sites had been\nexcavated in Hertfordshire. This picture is now changing, and is slowly building\ntowards a better understanding of the character and patterning of settlement in\nthe county. Complete or partial plans of varying Middle Iron Age enclosures\nhave been revealed in excavations at Bishop\u2019s Stortford North (Keir 2014), Park\nFarm Industrial Estate and Hare Street Road, Buntingford (Clarke 2015; Jones\n2016), and Balls Park, Hertford (Stone 2016). A large D-shaped enclosure\ncontaining several possible roundhouses has also been revealed by geophysical\nsurvey at Stevenage Road, St Ippolyts (Stephens 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elsewhere in Hertfordshire, at sites such as Manor Estate, Apsley (Grassam 2016), excavations have revealed more scattered remains, comprising groups of pits, postholes, and ditches, which may be elements of larger unclosed settlement scatters, or evidence for off-site tasking. Such distinctions can be difficult to make. Some specialist activities, however, were clearly undertaken away from core of settlement, with excavations at Stanford Wharf Nature Reserve, Essex, for example uncovering important evidence for Middle Iron Age salt production along the Thames Estuary (Biddulph 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dating is a theme of almost all past and present prehistoric\nresearch agendas, whether pitched at the county, regional or national scale.\nWhilst the establishment of reliable chronologies is rightly recognised as a\nfoundation to interpretation, the process of establishment, refinement, and the\nmeans by which these can be achieved for the period, continues to evolve with\nthe growth of our evidence base. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progress since 2011 has been tangible. Radiocarbon dating has continued\nto become more common place, and as a consequence, well over one hundred dates\nfor the period have reached print in the last decade, with many times more\nreported in grey literature and awaiting publication. Yet the full implications\nof this gradual accumulation of dates has yet to be fully realised, mainly\nbecause dating objectives have invariably aimed to address site specific\nquestions and sequences. Various biases in context selection (e.g. burials) have\ntherefore persisted, despite the overall growth in practice of dating, whilst projects\nwith wider scope and direction have not materialised, or have not found funding\nsupport. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dating has also tended to focus on the Late Bronze Age or Early\nIron Age, leaving many questions about the date of Middle Iron Age sequences\nand material chronologies still outstanding. Furthermore, the 2011 call for the\ngreater application of Bayesian modelling for dating has scarcely been heeded\nfor this period. Rare published exceptions include the dating programmes at\nSpringfield Lyons, (Brown and Medelycott), Essex; War Ditches (Pickstone and\nMortimer 2012) and Duxford (Lyons 2011), Cambridgeshire; Site 4 on the A421\nImprovement Scheme (Simmonds and Welsh 2013), and the Biddenham Loop (Luke\n2016), Bedfordshire. More such programmes, however, are needed to grapple with\nissues of sequence and the duration of occupation more effectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The scale of the changes that occurred across the Bronze Age-Iron\nAge transition have come into sharper focus in the region since 2011. Whilst\nthe shift or collapse in the circulation, use and deposition of bronze remains\nthe fundamental hallmark of this transition, more subtle transformations in\nsettlement forms, ceramics and other aspects of the material record have been gradually\nrecognised. Consequently the once dominant narrative of continuity in these\nareas has begun to be eroded over the last decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further work, however, is required to understand changes that\noccurred across the Early-Middle Iron Age transition, at a point conventionally\nplaced during fourth century BC. It is a transition that involves the breakdown\nof regional styles of Early Iron Age pottery, a brief fluorescence in the formation\nof some large distinctive and possibly aggregated pit-dominated settlement\nsites (e.g. Harston Hill and Trumpington Meadows) and the building of some of\nthe region\u2019s hillforts (e.g. War Ditches and Wandlebury). This coincided with an\nexplosion in the construction of small, ditched enclosed farmstead-type sites\nwith eaves-gully defined roundhouses, the widespread and permanent settlement\nof the region\u2019s claylands, and the emergence of a more restricted ceramic\nrepertoire dominated by either plain sandy wares or scored shelly wares. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The details of these shifts in settlement morphology, material\ntraditions and the wider social geography of the region\u2019s landscapes requires\nfurther definition, with aspects of these changes deserving of much closer\ndating. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Explicit references to the broader organisation of Late Bronze Age\nand Early to Middle Iron Age society remain rare. Whilst there is a general consensus\nthat societies were hierarchically organised in the period, varying somewhere\nalong the spectrum of \u2018big man\u2019 societies to chiefdoms, fleshing out the\ndetails of these social systems and wider societal relations has proved difficult.\nProgress on this front is therefore hard to pinpoint. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the settlement record the evidence for hierarchy is at best ambiguous.\nIn the Late Bronze Age, enclosed settlements such as the ringworks have been\ninterpreted as high-status \u2018aggrandised\u2019 sites or defended, elite residences.\nThe link between these sites and bronze metalworking, salt production and\nlarge-scale consumption has led to suggestions that they acted as local centres\nor foci for group gatherings, with redistribution and feasting being two of the\nprincipal vehicles for creating and maintaining social and political authority.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar activities have been interpreted as a driving force behind\nthe formation of community identity as well as social hierarchy in the Iron\nAge. A sense of wider community is glimpsed, sometime implicitly, in discourse\non settlement construction, and through the recognition that labour beyond a resident\nhousehold or farmstead was needed to build most enclosures in the period. Here\nthere is a tacit acknowledgement that construction forms one medium through\nwhich larger social collectives were made and defined; building providing the\nmechanism for creating and enacting broader networks of social relationships.\nThis is especially so for the construction of the region\u2019s hillforts or\naggrandised enclosures, where the labour requirement was significant, and\nnecessitated the mobilisation of substantial work forces over prolonged periods\nof time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given the nature of most archaeological work, and the character of\nthe majority of the small Late Bronze Age and Iron Age sites routinely\nexcavated, it is perhaps too ambitious to expect any easy wins on the subject\nof broad brush social organisation. For the most part, archaeological work is\nfocused on the investigation of small, rural homesteads, as part of local\nfarming communities. Future questions about the social should therefore be pitched\nto better understand these contexts as the basis for familial and community organisation,\nas opposed to addressing more abstract concepts of social hierarchy or tribal\nidentity in this period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n More tangible traces of larger Iron Age social units have been\nglimpsed in the excavation of large, and often sprawling, Early to Middle Iron\nAge sites. These aggregated settlements are of a different magnitude to most sites\ncommonly labelled \u2018farmsteads\u2019, and may have been occupied by multiple\nhousehold groups. In other settings, such as at Colne Fen, Cambridgeshire, patterns\nof paired enclosures have been recognised from the excavations, the consistency\nof which suggest that these units, as opposed to single household enclosures,\nwere for a basis for social\/familial organisation (Evans. et al, 240). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The concept that regional difference underlies the character of Iron\nAge archaeology in Eastern England is well established. Where focus has fallen\non broader geographic patterning in the last decade, studies have highlighted\ndifferences in the character of the material record at varying sub-regional\nscales (Davies 2011). The distinctive character of Norfolk\u2019s Iron Age\narchaeology, for example, has continued to be highlighted (Davies 2011 ), as\nhave aspects of Essex\u2019s Iron Age archaeology (Sealey 2015). There are signs of intra-regional\ndifferences in the form, frequency and scale of settlement enclosure in the\nMiddle Iron Age (see above), with enclosed occupation sites being comparatively\nscarce in parts of Norfolk, Suffolk and possibly Hertfordshire. There are also\ndifferences in the occurrence of features such as pit alignments and pit-dominated\nsites. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Patterns are certainly beginning to emerge in the Iron Age settlement\nrecord, especially in areas which have seen extensive excavation, and where\nprojects have focused on particular landscape zones (e.g. particular sections\nof river valley, the fen-edge, blocks of clayland, or other coherent landscape\nwindows). Regional differences will be most apparent when we look across these\nmajor projects, though the challenge will be finding the means and support to\ndo this comparative work, and to pitch any such studies at meaningful scales. Progress\non this front has therefore been slow. There may be widespread acknowledgement that\nthings are different between areas, but the details have not been formally\narticulated or committed to paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On a more positive note, geographic differences in Iron Age\npottery styles have come into sharper relief. A discussion of patterns\ndeveloped across a number of reports, for example, have built towards a clearer\nunderstanding of where the heartlands of the distribution of Middle Iron Age\nScored Ware rests. Similarly, the distribution and content of different Early\nIron Age pottery-styles zone has been defined more closely, and more critically,\nthan before (Sealey 2015; Brudenell 2011; 2012). <\/p>\n\n\n\n There is also increasing recognition that regional differences\nextend back into the Late Bronze Age, and are not just the hallmark of the following\nperiod. Late Bronze Age enclosures, for example, appear to be a more consistent\ncomponent of the settlement geography in the south of the region, notably along\nthe Thames Estuary and Stort and Lee Valley (see above). Adding to this, there\nis mounting evidence that field systems continued to be constructed in these\nsame areas during the Late Bronze Age, whereas elsewhere, coaxial boundary\nconstruction ceased in the Middle Bronze Age. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The reporting of prehistoric metalwork has continued to rise\nthough the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), underlining that the East of\nEngland is one of the major centres of metal deposition in this period.\nPublished estimates now suggest that around a third of all Bronze Age gold\nitems and bronze hoards have been found and reported within the last twenty\nyears (Murgia, Roberts & Wiseman 2015), with the overwhelming majority\nbeing made by metal-detectorists. Striking differences now exist between the\ndistributions of PAS-recorded material and earlier plots, with newly-identified\nconcentrations of metalwork, but also unexpected gaps (R. Wiseman pers comm.).\nThe potential of these finds, and the PAS as a large accessible data source,\nhowever, is now well established, and continues to underpin important artefact-based\nstudies for the period (e.g. Barrowclough 2013; Boughton 2015; Lawson 2014;\nWest 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Other advances have been made in ceramics and lithics studies.\nCounty ceramics sequences have been summarised for Norfolk (Brudenell 2011) and\nEssex (Sealey 2012), whilst aspects of the date, character and distribution of the\nregion\u2019s Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery traditions have been\nexplored in-depth (Brudenell 2012). In additional, recent works have examined\nvessel volumes of Late Bronze to Middle Iron Age pots (Brudenell et al<\/em>. 2016), as well as ceramic\ntechnologies in later Iron Age Eastern England (Sutton 2018). The flint industries\nof the period have also been subject to review (McLaren 2011). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Excavated Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement sites are\nnow much more widely recorded across the region. Primarily registering as\nunenclosed scatters of pits, postholes, and structural remains, where located,\nlarge-scale excavation has often been required to expose sufficient of these\nsettlements to obtain comprehensible plans. These have now been achieved for\nvarying parts of the region, to the extent that basic gaps in the settlement\nrecord have been filled, with each county having examples of these site forms to\nhand (see above). Other types of earlier first millennium BC settlement, such\nas enclosures, ringworks and large agglomerated pit dominated sites, are more\ngeographically and temporally restricted. The relationship between these and\nthe more common open-settlement of the period requires further study, and may\nreveal intra-regional differences in the character of settlement\ngeography. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The range of settlement types now documented for the Middle Iron\nAge is extremely broad ranging. On the one hand, the long established pattern that\nsettlement forms move from being largely unenclosed to enclosed from c. 350 BC\nonwards still holds true for most parts of the region. On the other, it is now\nclear that this is far too simplistic, and that settlements vary considerably\nin the details of their size, form configuration and even duration. Different\n\u2018types\u2019 of sites may be more characteristic of a particular area or county (see\nabove), but very often there is as much variation within<\/em> each area, as there is between them. Tempting though it is\nto generalise about open or enclosed settlement, organic versus rectilinear\nenclosures, or small single farmstead versus agglomerated sites etc., the settlement\nlandscape is more complex and interconnected, with multiple types of settlement\nnow being found on the same site in large projects. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Archaeo-botanical and archaeo-zoological studies continue to\nenhance our understanding of agricultural regimes in the period. The multitude\nof site-by-site studies, some of which have detailed vast individual faunal and\nplant remains assemblages, have afforded important insights into the agrarian\neconomy and land use at specific sites and settings. Whilst these are all\nvaluable in their own right, a few stand out as especially significant owing to\ntheir comparative approach and success in integrating different stands of evidence\nto reveal wider patterns in agricultural practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of note are Stevens (2013) and Higbee\u2019s (2013) analysis of the\nlater Iron Age plant and animal remains from the Colne Fen excavations, which\ndraw on results from a range of local and regional sites, to enrich context and\nexplore pattern and variability. Similar approaches have been carried forward\nin the analysis of remains from Barlecroft Farm\/Over (Evans 2016) and Bradley\nFen (Knight and Brudenell forthcoming), Cambridgeshire, adding further depth to\nthe understanding of agrarian regimes around the Lower Ouse Valley and the Fen-basin\nmore generally. These examples are obviously aided by the levels of\npreservation afforded by the sites, but demonstrate the value of comparative\nstudies that iteratively build toward a picture of agrarian practice at\nappropriately framed and meaningful landscape scales. Some of the key findings\nof the studies are the variability in species representation, notably the\nrelative ratios of cattle and sheep. Also apparent from the faunal record is\nthat most fen-edge Iron Age settlements are characterised by a paucity of\nwetland species, despite the obvious \u2018economic\u2019 benefits of such locations and\nthe potential for fishing, trapping and wildfowling. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There is now widespread evidence for the continued working of\nflint in the period, particularly in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age\n(McLaren 2011). Large assemblages of worked flint have been recovered from a range\nof sites and well-dated contexts, with patterns established in the character\nand composition of assemblages. The extent of flint working in the Middle Iron\nAge, however, is less well understood, and may well vary across the\nregion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast, ferrous slag, hearth bottom fragments, hammerscale\nand cinder are not uncommon finds from Middle Iron Age settlements in the\nregion. Though rarely recovered in any great quantity, the growing number of\nsites yielding these residues indicates that some aspects of ferrous metalworking,\nsuch as smithing, were widespread and probably organised at a local level by\nthe mid first millennium BC. The picture is far less clear for the Early Iron\nAge. Concrete evidence for iron smelting is also fairly scarce, but a furnace\ndated to the Middle Iron Age, and pottery-associated features filled with slags\nand furnace conglomerates have been excavated from Bradley Fen, Cambridgeshire\n(Knight and Brudenell forthcoming). Iron smelting has also been recorded at\nBroom Quarry Bedfordshire (Tabor 2014b)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evidence for copper alloy casting has been steadily growing, with crucibles\nand moulds\/clay refractories recovered from a range of contexts. Of note is the\nfull publication of the clay refractories from Springfield Lyons (Needham and\nBridgford 2013). This has significantly enhanced the understanding of sword\ncasting and production in the Late Bronze Age, with discussion providing a\nsummary of other assemblages from across Britain, including seven sites from\nthe region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A study of the evidence for Iron Age salt production in the coastal\nregions of Essex has been published together with a gazetteer of Bronze and\nIron Age briquetage finds (Kinory 2012). The publication of the Mucking\nexcavations also has added further to the understanding of salt production in Late\nBronze Age Essex, with large quantities of briquetage recovered, and two salt production\nzones identified (Barford 2016). Some of this material may even date to the\nEarly Iron Age. Furthermore, an important Middle Iron Age salt production site has\nbeen published from the Stanford Wharf on the Thames Estuary (Biddulph et al<\/em>. 2012), Essex, just c. 1km east of\nMucking. Elsewhere across the region, securely dated evidence for salt\nproduction in this period is scarce, although a Middle Iron Age salt working\nhas recently been excavated at Ormesby St Margaret, Norfolk (K. Anderson pers.\ncomm.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many of the research topics identified for this period in the 2011\nRegional Research Framework remain relevant and should be considered alongside\nthose proposed below. The same is true of themes discussed in Historic\nEngland\u2019s Research Strategy for Prehistory<\/em>\n(2010) and Understanding the British Iron\nAge: An Agenda for Action<\/em> (Champion et\nal<\/em>. 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whilst it is now acknowledged that ditch-defined field systems\nwere widely constructed in the region during the Middle Bronze Age, the later\nhistory of these features requires further investigation. How long did Middle\nBronze Age boundary systems continue to structure the organisation of the early\nto mid-first millennium BC landscapes? Further work is also needed to define\nif, where and when earlier field systems were actively maintained, or establish\nwhether new systems were constructed. Although evidence for boundary\nmaintenance beyond the Middle Bronze Age appears to be absent from most of the\nregion, it should not be assumed that this pattern is universal, since Late\nBronze Age field systems have been recorded from parts of Essex and\nHertfordshire. Intra-regional variation might therefore be anticipated, but the\nevidence for late systems requires careful scrutiny. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Eastern England is home to a heterogeneous of groups of defensible\n\u2018hillforts\u2019, ringworks and other \u2018aggrandised enclosures\u2019. The origins, history\nand status of all these sites requires further investigation. Given that opportunities to excavate are\nlikely to be rare, there is a need to revisit existing archives, review stratigraphic\nsequences, and construct new scientific dating programmes using any suitable\nsamples and curated finds from previous investigations. An outline chronology\nbased on scientific dates is needed for each of the region\u2019s hillforts if we\nare to properly understand their function and relationship to surrounding sites\nand one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The study of Late Bronze Age ringworks has been significantly\nenhanced by the recent publication of Springfield Lyons and Mucking South\nRings. However, this wider category of site would still benefit from further\nreview and study. With the exception of Springfield Lyons, none of the ringwork\nditches has high-precision scientifically dated sequences. Programmes of\nabsolute dating are needed to establish the origins and duration of activity at\nthese sites. This should attempt to secure the dating of the upper enclosure\nfills from which the vast majority of the finds associated with these sites are\nderived. This is especially crucial since\nringwork ditches have yielded some of the only large stratified sequences of\npottery that straddle the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition. Were these sites\nstill in use in the Earliest Iron Age, and if so, did their role and function\nchange across the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Further analysis is needed to explore the range of settlement\nforms in the Late Bronze Age to Middle Iron Age, and establish their patterning\nand distribution. Work is needed to define more closely the different types of\nsettlement and enclosure evident, and explore how they vary over space and\ntime. This may require the creation of new systems of categorisation to assist\nin the description of different settlement forms, sizes, and configurations.\nCategorisation would not be the end goal, but the means of establishing a\ncommon language to aid comparison and analysis of variability. Attempts should\nbe made to correlate patterns with the quantity and range of finds to try and\nbenchmark different types of sites. Is there a correlation between enclosure\nforms and economic signature from animal bone retrieved, or the ceramic\nrepertoire recovered? Are all types of find found across all types of site, or\nis there patterning in the content and composition?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether the product of single large-scale excavations, or the\naccrual of numerous small investigations in the same area, fieldwork has now\nrevealed vast swathes of particular landscapes in the region. Excavations are\nno longer just framing single settlements, but are revealing multiple areas of\noccupation and settlement, plus the various spaces in between. Further work is\nneeded to explore the connections between adjacent sites thought to be\ncontemporary. How did they relate, physically, socially and economically? Beyond\nproximity, can we trace other physical and material links between these sites?\nClues may be found in the details of the content and composition of their\nartefact repertoires or faunal signatures etc.. Are these more alike on\nadjacent sites than those from those further afield? Equally, differences may\nbe revealing of relative status, or the adoption of different but linked\neconomic strategies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is now apparent that many areas of the region\u2019s claylands were\nextensively occupied by the end of the Middle Iron Age. Further work is needed\nto understand the processes of permanently settling these heavy soils, and how\nthey unfolded over the course of the period. To what extent can \u2018pioneering\u2019\nphases of occupation be recognised, and when did these give way to widespread\npermanent settlements? The character of\nclayland occupation in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age require closer\ndefinition. Does this occupation differ to that on the gravels or other\ngeologies? Is there any evidence that specific activities were being conducted\non the clay? How did agrarian regimes on clayland sites complement or contrast with\nthose on other geologies, and what was the relationship between such sites. And\nare there any signs that a distinct clayland community identity emerged in any\npart of the region during this period?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Artefact studies are deserving of greater investment and\nprominence in discourse on later prehistory in Eastern England. The\ndistribution and patterning of most basic artefact categories requires further\nstudy and synthesis, e.g. pottery, querns, briquetage, loom weights, spindle\nwhorls, worked bone and antler, bronze and iron dress accessories, tools and\nweapons. Are there differences in the geographic pattern of particular\nartefacts or artefact attributes (form, material, decoration etc)? If so, do\nthese distributions correlate with particular sites types, the distribution of\nother artefacts, for example pottery-styles zones? At what scales do these\npattern resolve themselves, and what might they mean in social terms?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The existing typologies for most artefacts types requires critical\nreview and renewal. Many have not been updated for decades. Technological\nstudies are also needed to establish how artefacts were manufactured, and the\ndifferent processes and raw materials involved in their production. These are\nbasic questions, but need to be addressed to understand how material tradition\npersisted and changed. In many instances, scientific analysis will be required\nto properly characterise (and potentially provenance) raw materials and examine\nproduction techniques. These need to become more routine. Were artefact that\nare typologically or visually similar always made in the same way, or are there\nunderlying difference in technological tradition? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, in all cases, analysis must be pitched at appropriate\ngeographic and contextual scales, which may not always chime with the site\nspecific nature of archaeological work in the region. Further resources and\nsupport are therefore required to characterise and investigate the broader\npatterning of artefacts in space and time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Late Bronze Age cremations and a smaller number of Early Iron Age examples\nare now being widely identified in the region as consequence of the more\nregular application of radiocarbon dating. It can no longer be assumed that\nunurned cremations are of Middle Bronze Age date in Eastern England. These\ncremations are being found in varying contexts and locations, as isolated burials,\nsmall groups, as or as part of larger cemeteries. Further work is needed to\nunderstand the nature and extent of this funerary tradition, and the degree of\ncontinuity with practices from the Middle Bronze Age. At present, dates\nachieved for Late Bronze Age cremations appear to cluster between c. 1200-1000\nBC but the chronology requires further resolution. Can changes in Late Bronze\nAge cremation practice be recognised over time? Some Early Iron Age examples\nhave also been recorded suggesting continuity into the earlier first millennium\nBC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Routine radiocarbon dating of cremations will be crucial. Isolated\ncremations should be dated, and the extent of dating programmes for cemeteries\nwill need careful consideration on a site by site basis to address the issues above.\nThe same is true for isolated, often flexed, inhumations, which have yielded\ndates covering the whole of the late second and first millennium BC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, an undercurrent of variation in burial practice is\napparent in the Late Bronze Age, and this becomes much more prominent and\npronounced in the Early and Middle Iron Age. Excavation has now uncovered a\nvast number of Iron Age human remains, and these display a wide spectrum of\ntreatments both in the context and manner of their interment. Practices range\nfrom the formal burial of complete bodies to the interment of partially\narticulated and disarticulated remains. In the case of the latter, these appear\nto grade in respect to the degree of consideration afforded to specific\nelements (e.g. skull fragments) and the context of burial: some appear to have\nbeen purposefully selected, possibly curated, and carefully placed, whilst\nothers appear to be caught up amongst a generalised matrix of material refuse.\nThere is also growing evidence for the deposition of human remains in rivers\nand watery contexts in some parts of the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further work is needed to establish patterns in burial practice\nand the treatment of human remains. To what extent can different burial\ntraditions be identified, and do they vary over time and space in the region? Are there patterns in the age and sex profile\nof human remains, and do these differ in relation to treatment in burial? Is\nthere patterning in the selection and deposition of disarticulated body parts?\nFurther work is also needed to examine the modification of human bone. Worked\nand sometimes polished human remains are increasingly being identified. What\nwas the status of these bones and how were they used? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Work is also needed to examine grave-goods in more detail. Formal\nburial of complete bodies often contain grave-goods, particularly items of\npersonal adornment, or more rarely, pots. Is there any patterning in which\nobjects were selected for burial, or where we find them? How common is this\npractice, and what might it tell us about the construction of identity and\npersonhood? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Work is needed to explore the wider nature of depositional\npractice on sites. Discussions on this theme have tended to focus on overtly\nformal acts of \u2018structured\u2019 or \u2018ritual\u2019 deposition. These are important, but\ninterpretation must move beyond definition and identification if it is to continue\nto further the understanding of these practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucial is the recognition that material entered the ground in a\nvariety of different ways, and for a variety of different reasons, grading from\nthe largely unconsidered disposal of refuse at one end of the spectrum, to\novertly and explicitly symbolic acts of deposition at the other. All require\nanalysis to understand routine practice and its changes over time. Ultimately,\nframeworks are needed to explore these differing pathways with the aim of\nexamining the treatments afforded to materials in them. Unpicking these processes\nwill require careful analysis of the condition and configuration of material\nassemblages, and a consideration of spatial patterning. In particular, work on\nthis topic should address the issue of refuse maintenance and the formation of\nmiddens or surface refuse heaps within settlements, as these pre-depositional\ncontexts are often inferred from the analysis of material pattering. Is it possible\nto track to how middening within settlements changed in this period? Are there\ndifferences in the configuration, location and scale of middens? Adkins, R. 2013. Iron Age to\nRoman Settlement at Low Park Corner, Chippenham<\/em>, Cambridgeshire.\nUnpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report 1275<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adkins, R, and Percival S. 2014. Cromwell Community College,\nChatteris, Cambridgeshire: Further Evidence for Early Iron Age Ceramic\nChronology. Proceedings of the Cambridge\nAntiquarian Society<\/em> 103, 27-37<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bales, E., Cattermole, A., Horlock, S. with Tremlett, S. 2011. The Archaeology of Thetford \u2018Growth Point\u2019\n& Environs. Results of the Thetford Growth Point National Mapping Programme\n(NMP) Project<\/em>. Unpublished English Heritage Report, Project No. 5313<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barford, P. 2016. Fired Clay. In Evans, C., Appleby, G., Lucy, S.,\nwith Appleby, J., and Brudenell, M., Lives\nin Land. Mucking Excavations by Margaret and Tom Jones, 1965-1978: Prehistory,\nContext and Summary, <\/em>196-198. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit\nMonograph<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barker, J., and Meckseper, C. 2015. Bedford Western Bypass Northern Section, Bromham Road, Bedford:\nAssessment of Potential and Updated Project Design<\/em>. Unpublished Albion\nArchaeology Report 2015\/44<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barlow, G., and Newton, A. 2013.\nHitchin Grade Separation, Hitchin, Hertfordshire: an archaeological excavation\ninterim report and updated project design<\/em>. Unpublished Archaeological\nSolutions Report 4197<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barrowclough, D. 2012. The Identification of a Later Bronze Age\nHoard at Barway, and the Consideration of the Association between Metalwork and\nCauseways. Proceedings of the Cambridge\nAntiquarian Society<\/em> 102, 29-36<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beverton, A. 2011. Westley\nHall Farm, Westley, WLY 011. Archaeological Excavation Report<\/em>. Unpublished\nSuffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report 2011\/161. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Biddulph, E., Foreman, S., Stafford, L., Stansbie, D., and\nNicholson, R. 2012. London Gateway. Iron\nAge and Roman salt making in the Thames Estuary. Excavation at Stanford Wharf\nNature Reserve, Essex<\/em>. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology Monograph 18<\/p>\n\n\n\n Boughton, D. 2015. The Early\nIron Age socketed axes in Britain<\/em>. Unpublished doctoral theses, University\nof University of Central Lancashire<\/p>\n\n\n\n Boulter, S. 2011. Former\nTarmac Quarry, Flixton (FLN 009). Archaeological Excavation Archive Repot<\/em>.\nUnpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report 2011\/111. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Boulter, S. 2015. Flixton\nPark Quarry, Flixton, Suffolk, FLN 088 and FLN 090, Assessment 3b.\nPost-Excavation Assessment Report<\/em>. Unpublished Suffolk County Council\nArchaeology Service Report 2013\/099. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Brown, N., and Medlycott, M. 2013. The Neolithic and Bronze Age Enclosures at Springfield Lyons, Essex:\nExcavations 1981-1991<\/em>. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 149<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brudenell, M. 2011. Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery in\nNorfolk – A review. In J Davies (ed.), The\nIron Age in Northern East Anglia: New Work in the Land of the Iceni<\/em>, 11-24.\nOxford: British Archaeology Reports, British Series 549<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brudenell, M. 2012. Pots,\nPractice and Society: an investigation of pattern and variability in the\nPost-Deverel Rimbury ceramic tradition of East Anglia<\/em>. Unpublished doctoral\nthesis, University of York<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brudenell, M., Herring, V., and Horne, D. 2016. Vessel volumes and\nVisualisation: Innovative Computer Applications for Ceramicists. In E.\nSibbesson, B. Jervis and S. Coxon (eds),\nInsights From Innovation: New Light on Archaeological Ceramics<\/em>, 199-220.\nOxford: Oxbow<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brudenell, M., and Hogan, S. 2014. Refining Suffolk\u2019s Later\nPrehistoric Ceramic Sequence: Iron Age pottery and settlement remains at\nMorland Road, Ipswich. Proceedings of the\nSuffolk Institute of Archaeology and History <\/em>43 (2), 207-218.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bryant, S. 2015. A nice place to live: settlement and landscape in\nHertfordshire from 1500 BC to 300 BC. In Lockyear, K (ed.). Archaeology in Hertfordshire: Recent\nResearch<\/em>. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bush, L. 2017. Neolithic,\nBronze Age and Anglo-Saxon remains at Hazel End, Bishop’s Stortford, <\/em>Hertfordshire.\nPost-excavation Assessment. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report 2085<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bush, L., and Mortimer, R. 2015. Bronze Age post alignments, an Iron Age trackway and a Roman\ncultivation system on land south of the Bell Language School, Cambridge.\nArchaeological Excavation<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report 1662<\/p>\n\n\n\n Caruth, J. 2012. Land south\nof Hartismere High School Eye, Suffolk, EYE 083. Post-Excavation Assessment\nReport<\/em>. Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report\n2012\/067.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cattermole, A., Ford, E., Horlock, S. with Tremlett, S. 2013. The Archaeology of the \u2018A11 Corridor\u2019.\nResults of the \u2018A11 Corridor\u2019 Study Area for the Norwich, Thetford and A11\nCorridor National Mapping Programme (NMP) Project<\/em>. Unpublished English\nHeritage Report, Project No. 5313<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chaffey, G., Wakenham, G., Leivers, M., and Bradley, P. 2013.\nBronze Age and Anglo-Saxon occupation at Clements Park, Southend-On-Sea. Essex Archaeology and History<\/em> 4, 40-58<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarke, G. 2015. An Iron Age\nSettlement at Land North of Hare Street Road, Buntingford. Post-excavation\nAssessment and Updated Project Design<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East\nReport 1702<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarke, G. 2017. Bronze Age\nand Early Saxon settlement remains on Land East of Warren Hill, Saxmundham,\nSuffolk. Archaeological Excavation<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology Report\n2029<\/p>\n\n\n\n Collins, M. 2016a. Northstowe,\nPhase 1 Cambridgeshire. Archaeological Post Excavation Assessment (Vol. 2).\nAreas F1, F2 and K<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 1348.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Collins, M. 2017b. Northstowe,\nPhase 1 Cambridgeshire. Archaeological Post Excavation Assessment (Vol. 3).\nArea M<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 1363.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Craven, J. 2012. Liberty\nVillage, RAF Lakenheath, Eriswell. ERL 143, ERL 147, ERL 148 & ERL 203. Archaeological\nAssessment Report<\/em>. Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service\nReport 2012\/038.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Davies, J (ed.). 2011. The\nIron Age in Northern East Anglia: New Work on the Land of the Iceni. <\/em>Oxford:\nBritish Archaeology Repots, British Series 549<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dyson, A. 2015. Bellway\nHomes Land Parcel, Newhall Development Phase II, Harlow, Essex. Post-excavation\nassessment and final archive report<\/em>. Unpublished Archaeology South-East\nReport 2015025 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Evans C., with Brudenell, M., Patten, R., and Regan, R. 2013. Process and History: Prehistoric Fen-edge\nCommunities at Colne Fen, Earith<\/em>. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monograph<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evans, C. with Tabor, J., and Vander Linden, M. 2016. Twice\u2013crossed river. Prehistoric and palaeoenviornmental\ninvestigations at Barleycroft Farm\/Over, Cambridgeshir<\/em>e. Cambridge:\nMcDonald Institute Monographs<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evans, C., and Patten R. 2011. An Inland Bronze Age: Excavations\nat Striplands Farm, West Longstanton. Proceedings\nof the Cambridge Antiquarian Society<\/em> 100, 7-45<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evans, C., Appleby, G., Lucy, S., with Appleby, J., and Brudenell,\nM. 2016. Lives in Land. Mucking\nExcavations by Margaret and Tom Jones, 1965-1978: Prehistory, Context and\nSummary<\/em>. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit Monograph<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gibson, C. and Powell, A. 2017. Late Bronze Age burials and Iron\nAge, Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement at Queen Street, Stotfold, Bedfordshire Archaeology<\/em> 27,\n35\u221267 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Gilmour, N. 2015. Early to\nLate Bronze Age funerary activity and later Bronze Age domestic material at\nTurners Yard, Fordham, Cambridgeshire<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East\nReport 1425.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grassam, A. 2016. A Middle Iron Age Roundhouse and later Remains\nat Manor Estate, Apsley. Hertfordshire\nArchaeology and History<\/em> 17, 35-54<\/p>\n\n\n\n Havard, T., and Holt, R. 2012. Land\nat Recreation Way, Mildenhall, Suffolk. Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated\nProject Design<\/em>. Unpublished Cotswold Archaeology Report 12114<\/p>\n\n\n\n Haselgrove, C., Armit, I.,\nChampion, T., Creighton, J., Gwilt, A., Hill, J.D., Hunter, F., and Woodward,\nA. 2001. Understanding the British Iron\nAge. An agenda for Action<\/em>. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd<\/p>\n\n\n\n Haselgrove, C., and Moore, T (eds). 2007. The Later Iron Age in Britain and beyond<\/em>. Oxford: Oxbow<\/p>\n\n\n\n Haselgrove, C., and Pope, R (eds). 2007. The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent<\/em>. Oxford:\nOxbow<\/p>\n\n\n\n Heard, K. 2013. Late Bronze\nAge settlement at Bloodmoor Hill, Carlton Colville, Suffolk, CAC 042. Analytical\nReport<\/em>. Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report\n2012\/183.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Heard, K., 2016. Middle Iron Age Buildings at Westfield Primary\nSchool, Chalkstone Way, Haverhill. Proceedings\nof the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History<\/em> 43 (3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Higbee, L. 2013. Mammal, bird and fish bone. In Evans C., with\nBrudenell, M., Patten, R., and Regan, R, Process\nand History: Prehistoric Fen-edge Communities at Colne Fen, Earith<\/em>,\n201-212. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monograph<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hunn, J. 2016.At Late Bronze\nAge & Medieval site at Stocks Golf Course, Aldbury. Hertfordshire Archaeology and History<\/em> 17, 7-33<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ingle, C. and Saunders, H. 2011. Aerial Archaeology in Essex: the role of the National Mapping Programme\nin interpreting the landscape<\/em>. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report\n136 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Jones, M. 2016. Land North if the Land North of the Park\nFarm Industrial Estate and the Freman College, Ermine Street, Buntingford:\nArchaeological Excavation Post-Excavation Assessment<\/em>. Unpublished\nPre-Construct Archaeology Report R12646<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keir, W. 2013. Former Howe\nDell School Playing Field, Hatfield, Hertfordshire: Assessment of Potential and\nUpdated Project Design<\/em>. Unpublished Albion Archaeology Report 2013\/22<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keir, W. 2014. Land at Bishop\u2019s\nStortford North (Western Neighbourhood), Hertfordshire: Preliminary Summary of\nthe Results of Archaeological Mitigation<\/em>. Unpublished Albion Archaeology\nReport 2014\/207 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Kinory, J. 2012. Salt Production,\nDistribution and Use in the British Iron Age. Oxford: British Archaeology\nReports, British Series 559<\/p>\n\n\n\n Knight, M., Ballantyne, R., and Robinson Zeki, I. 2017. An Interim Report for the Archaeological\nExcavation of the Must Farm Timber Platform<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge\nArchaeological Unit Report<\/p>\n\n\n\n Knight, M., and Brudenell, M. Forthcoming. Pattern & Process.\nLandscape Prehistories from Whittlesey Brick Pits, The Bradley Fen & King’s\nDyke Excavations (Flag Fen Basin Depth & Time Series Volume 1). Cambridge:\nCambridge Archaeological Unit Monograph<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ladd, S. and Mortimer, R. Forthcoming. The Early Iron Age Origins\nof the Cambridgeshire Dykes. Proceeding\nof the Cambridge Antiquarian Society<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Last, J., and McDonald, T. 2013. Gadebridge: A Late Bronze Age Settlement near Hemel Hemsptead,\nHertfordshire. Research Archive Repor<\/em>t. Unpublished Archaeological\nSolutions Report 4037<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawson, A.J. 2014. Late Bronze Age finds from Banyard\u2019s Hall,\nBunwell, Norfolk. In Ashley, S., and Marsden, A (eds), Landscapes and Artefacts. Studies in East Anglian Archaeology Presented\nto Andrew Rogerson<\/em>, 3-10. Oxford: Archaeopress<\/p>\n\n\n\n Luke, M. 2016. Close to the\nLoop. Landscape and settlement beside the Biddenham Loop, west of Bedford.\nBedford<\/em>. East Anglian Archaeology Report 156<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lyons, A. 2011. Life and\nAfterlife at Duxford, Cambridgeshire: archaeology and history in a chalkland\ncommunity<\/em>. Bar Hill: East Anglian Archaeology Report 141<\/p>\n\n\n\n McLaren, A, 2011. “I’ll have a Flake to go, Please”. Lithic Technology<\/em> 36. 55-88.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Murgia, A., Roberts, B.W., and Wiseman, R. 2014. What have metal detectorists\ndone for us? A case study of Bronze Age gold in England and Wales. Arch\u00e4ologisches Korrespondenzblatt<\/em>\n44(3), 353\u2013367. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Needham, S., and Bridgford, S. 2013. Deposits of clay refractories\nfor casting bronze swords. In Brown, N., and Medlycott, M., The Neolithic and Bronze Age Enclosures at\nSpringfield Lyons, Essex: Excavations 1981-1991<\/em>, 47-74. Chelmsford: East\nAnglian Archaeology Report 149<\/p>\n\n\n\n Newman, J., and Jeffery, E. 2015. Archaeological Investigation, Recording, Analysis and Publication at\nBroadmead Road, Stewrtby, Bedfordshire. Updated Project Design and Assessment\nof Results<\/em>. Unpublished Headland Archaeology Report BRDS13<\/p>\n\n\n\n Newton, A. 2015.Mill House\nFarm, Chadwell St Mary, Essex. Archaeological Assessment and Updated Project\nDesign<\/em>. Unpublished Archaeological Solutions Report 4960. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Newton, A., Mustching, A., 2015. Archaeological Excavations at\nIngham Quarry, Fornham St Genevieve. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of\nArchaeology and History 43 (3), 337-369.<\/p>\n\n\n\n O\u2019Brien, L. 2016. Bronze Age\nBarrow, Early to Middle Iron Age Settlement and Burials, and Early Anglo-Saxon\nSettlement at Harston Mill, Cambridgeshire. Bury St Edmunds: East Anglian\nArchaeology Report 157<\/p>\n\n\n\n Patten, R. 2012a. Trumpington\nMeadows, Cambridge. An Archaeological Excavation<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge\nArchaeological Unit Report 1134<\/p>\n\n\n\n Patten, R. 2012b. An Iron\nAge and Roman Settlement at Summersfield, Papworth Everard.<\/em> Proceedings of\nthe Cambridge Antiquarian Society101, 115-142<\/p>\n\n\n\n Patten, R. 2016. Bearscroft\nFarm, Godmanchester: An Archaeological Excavation<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge\nArchaeological Unit Excavation Report 1340 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Phillips, Y. Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement and land-use at\nthe Milton Landfill and Park & RIde Sites, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antquarian\nSociety<\/em> 104, 7-30 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Phillips T., and Mortimer, R. 2012. Clay Farm, Trumpington, Cambridgeshire. Post-excavation Assessment and\nUpdated Project Design<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report 1294<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pickstone, A., Mortimer, R. 2012. War Ditches, Cherry Hinton: Revisiting an Iron Age Hillfort.\nProceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society<\/em> 101, 31-59<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rees, G. 2016. Iron Age,\nRoman and Middle Saxon Settlement at the site of the Peterborough Gas\nCompressor Station, Glinton. Archaeological Excavation Report and Updated\nProject Design for Publication<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report\n1936.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sealey, P. 2012. The Iron Age of Essex Revisited. Essex Archaeology and History <\/em>3, 37-60 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Simmonds, A. and Welsh. K. 2013. The Iron Age and Roman landscape of Marston Vale, Bedfordshire.\nInvestigations along the A421 Improvements, M1 Junction 13 to Bedford<\/em>.\nOxford: Oxford Archaeology Monograph 19<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stevens, C. 2013. The plant remains: agricultural practices and\nland use. In Evans C., with Brudenell, M., Patten, R., and Regan, R, Process and History: Prehistoric Fen-edge\nCommunities at Colne Fen, Earith<\/em>, 197-201. Cambridge: McDonald Institute\nMonograph<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stone, P. 2016. A Middle Iron Age Settlement at Balls Park,\nHertford. Hertfordshire Archaeology and\nHistory<\/em> 17, 55-77<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stephens, C. 2015.\nGeophysical Survey Report G15103: Stevenage Road Solar Farm, Hertfordshire<\/em>.\nUnpublished GSB Prospection Report G15103<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stocks-Morgan, H. 2016a. Iron\nAge, Roman and Pot-Medieval Remains at Site 8, Beaulieu, Chelmsford.\nArchaeological Excavation<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report 1674<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stocks-Morgan, H. 2016b. Multi-period remains from the Beaulieu\nMinerals Extraction Site (Site 1), Beaulieu, Chelmsford. Post-excavation\nAssessment. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report 1924<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sutton, A.D. 2018. At the\nInterface of Makers, Matter, and Material Culture: Techniques and society in\nthe ceramics of the southern British Later Iron Age.<\/em> Unpublished doctoral\nthesis, University of Reading<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabor, J., 2014a. Later Prehistoric Settlement at Days Road, Caple\nSt Mary. Proceedings of the Suffolk\nInstitute of Archaeology and History<\/em> 43 (2), 177-206.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabor, J. 2014b. Archaeological\nInvestigations at Broom Quarry, Bedfordshire: Phases 11-13. Post Excavation\nAssessment Volume 1<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 1213<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabor, J. 2015. Astrzeneca\nNew Cambridge Site. Volume I: Post-Excavation Assessment<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge\nArchaeological Unit Report 1298<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabor, J. 2016a. The Jaguar\nLand Rover Used Car Showroom, Newmarket Road, Cambridge. Archaeological Interim\nStatement<\/em>. Unpublished Cambridge\nArchaeological Unit Report 1342<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tabor, J. 2016a. Broom South\nQuarry, Bedfordshire. Archaeological Interim Statement<\/em>. Unpublished\nCambridge Archaeological Unit Report 1327<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tremlett, S., with Albone J., and Horlock, S. 2011. Iron Age\nlandscapes from the air: results from the Norfolk national mapping programme.\nIn J. Davies (ed), The Iron Age in\nNorthern East Anglia: New Work on the Land of the Iceni, <\/em>25-40. <\/em>Oxford: British Archaeology Repots,\nBritish Series 549<\/p>\n\n\n\n West, A. 2014. A late Bronze Age hoard from Feltwell. In Ashley,\nS., and Marsden, A (eds), Landscapes and\nArtefacts. Studies in East Anglian Archaeology Presented to Andrew Rogerson<\/em>,\n11-26. Oxford: Archaeopress<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilson, T., Cater, D., Clay, C. and Moore, R. 2016. Bacton to King\u2019s Lynn Gas Pipeline Volume 1:\nPrehistoric, Roman and Medieval Archaeology<\/em>. Lincoln: East Anglian\nArchaeology Report 145<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yates, D. 2007. Land, Power and Prestige. Bronze Age Field Systems\nin Southern England. Oxford: Oxbow<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yates, D. 2012. Connecting and Disconnecting in the Bronze Age. Essex Archaeology and History <\/em>3, 26-36<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" National and regional overviews Nearly two decades on, Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action (Champion et al 2001) remains a key source for research topics on the first millennium BC, with its overarching themes of chronological framework, settlement patterns, material culture, rationality and social-economic change being as relevant today as they were […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":568,"parent":27,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-11","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAssessment of key projects<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key Projects: Late Bronze Age to Iron Age<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n\n
\n\t \nAUTHORITY<\/th> PROJECT<\/th> LOCATION<\/th> TYPE<\/th> COMMENTS<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> Broom Quarry<\/td> Broom<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Substantial multi-phase Middle Iron Age settlement with 24 roundhouses, 20 settlement enclosures and 870 pits were associated with the Middle Iron Age. Large number Associated Bone Groups and large pottery assemblage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> Broom South Quarry<\/td> Broom<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA open settlement with two roundhouses, each associated with a small cluster of pits<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> Broadmead Road<\/td> Stewartby<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA enclosure and occupation features<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> Queen Street, Stotfold<\/td> Stotfold<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> LBA creations and MIA enclosure with roundhouse.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> A421 Improvement Scheme<\/td> M1 Juncion 13 to Bedford<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> EIA cremation. MIA occupation at Sites 2, 4, 5 and 6, with concentric curvilinear enclosure at Site 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> Bedford Western Bypass Northern Section<\/td> Bedford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA\/EIA enclose, MIA occupation features and field system ditches.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Beds<\/td> Biddenham Loop<\/td> Bedford<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Series of major excavations revealing eight zones of unenclosed LBA to MIA settlement with pits, posthole, and roundhouses. Excavation also revealed five LBA-MIA pits alignments.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Must Farm<\/td> Peterborough<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA palisade-enclosed pile dwelling burnt down in the 9 th century BC. Stunning preservation of structure and household artefact assemblages. Project of national\/international significance. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Barleycraft Farm\/Over<\/td> Over<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> LBA arefact-rich buried soil on mid-channel sand ridge of the lower Ouse. Relatively few associated cut features. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Turners Yard<\/td> Fordham<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA cremations and barrow ditch with dumps of LBA material in the upper fills. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Striplands Farm<\/td> Longstanton<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> LBA open settlement with pits, postholes post-building structures and series of waterholes with worked wood and artefact-rich capping fills. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Milton Landfill and Park & Ride Sites<\/td> Milton<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> EIA and MIA settlement. Unenclosed EIA settlement with pits, posthole scatters, post-built structures and a series of waterholes with work work, radiocarbon dates and large pottery assemblages. Component of an enclosed MIA settlement with roundhouses, and waterhole. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Colne Fen<\/td> Earith<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Large scale excavations revealing multiple enclosure MIA settlement sites. Important overview of the local IA landscape and economy. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> War Ditches<\/td> Cherry Hinton<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Targeted excavation of EIA ringfort, associated with radiocarbon dates. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Newmarket Road<\/td> Cambridge<\/td> Excavation<\/td> EIA and MIA settlement. EIA open settlement c. 18 four-post structure. MIA settlement with multiple enclosures and c. 500 pits. Large pottery and animal bone assemblages<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Northstowe<\/td> Longstanton<\/td> Excavation<\/td> EIA and MIA. Large scale excavation with multiple MIA enclosures and structures<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Clay Farm<\/td> Cambridge<\/td> Excavation <\/td> Large scale excavation with activity spanning the EIA and MIA, with open EIA settlement, 4-post structures, other post-built buildings, and a series of MIA enclosures, roundhouses and pits. Regionally important group of well dated Earliest Iron Age pottery. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Bell Language School<\/td> Cambridge<\/td> Excavation<\/td> EIA cobbled trackway running parallel with an extensive BA post alignment. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Summersfield<\/td> Papworth Everards<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Three separate area of MIA settlement with enclosures and a total of five roughhouses. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Hinxton Road<\/td> Duxford <\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> E-MIA settlement with pit clusters and parts of several small enclosures <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Cromwell Community College<\/td> Chatteris<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> EIA open settlement with pits, posthole, waterholes and tow four-post structures. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Trumpington Meadows<\/td> Cambridge<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Large, unenclosed pit-dominated EIA settlement with 16 four-post structures, and c. 560 pits; most belonging to four large pit clusters. Site also contains a pit alignment and MIA enclosures. Large number of human remains, and large artefact and faunal assemblages.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Harston Mill<\/td> Harston<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Large, unenclosed pit-dominated E-MIA settlement with five post-building roundhouses, three four-post structures, and c.200 pits. Large number of human remains, and large artefact and faunal assemblages.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Low Park Corner<\/td> Chippenham<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA pits scatters and pits clusters, with 98 phased pits.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> AstrZeneca New Cambridge Site.<\/td> Cambridge<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA pit alignment, roundhouse and other pits. EIA waterhole.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Bearscroft Farm<\/td> Godmanchester<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA settlement with pit alignment, small enclosures constructed along a long boundary ditch. Site also has a series of inter-connected organic-type curvilinear enclosures, including \u2018banjo-like\u2019 examples, and multiple roundhouses. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Cambs.<\/td> Peterborough Gas Compressor Station Site<\/td> Glinton<\/td> Excavation<\/td> EIA and MIA settlement. EIA open settlement with pits, postholes, waterholes and post-built structures. MIA settlement with a small curvilinear connected to a long boundary ditch. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Newhall Development Phase II<\/td> Harlow<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Scattered EIA settlement features<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Mill House Farm<\/td> Chadwell St Mary<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Extensive LBA settlement with a possible ringwork, enclosures, structures and field system ditches. Large assemblage of LBA pottery and a series of possible LBA cremations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Clements Park<\/td> Southend-On-Sea<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> LBA occupation, rectilinear fields system ditches\/enclosures and trackways <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Springfield Lyons<\/td> Chelmsford<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> LBA ringwork with four internal post-built roadhouses and associated pits, posthole and four-post structures. Regionally significant assemblage of fired clay metalworking moulds, and a stratified assemblage of LBA pottery associated with radiocarbon dates<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Beaulieu<\/td> Chelmsford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> A series of excavations revealing open and enclosed MIA settlements with roundhouses, 4-post structures and other occupation features. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> National Mapping Programme<\/td> <\/td> Aerial Photography <\/td> Synthesis of result of The National Mapping Project in Essex with numerous new later prehistoric sits identified<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Mucking<\/td> Mucking<\/td> Publication<\/td> Publication of the results of large-scale excavation at the site between 1965-1978. Includes LBA ringwork, areas of LBA-EIA settlement, 110 later prehistoric roundhouses and multiple later Iron Age enclosures. Substantial, regionally significnat artefact assemblages. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Stanford Wharf Nature Reserve<\/td> Thames Estuary<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> MIA slat production site with associated pottery and radiocarbon dates<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Essex<\/td> Beaulieu<\/td> Chelmsford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Series of excavation revealing several later IA enclosures, roundhouses and associated features<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Balls Park<\/td> Hertford<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> MIA enclosure with internal features<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Manor Estate<\/td> Apsley<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> MIA occupation and boundary features<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Hare Street Road<\/td> Buntingford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA enclosure with 4-post structures and external roundhouse<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Bishop\u2019s Stortford North<\/td> Bishop\u2019s Stortford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA-MIA occupation. LBA cremations. MIA enclosure, roundhouses and 4-post structures <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Hazel End<\/td> Bishop\u2019s Stortford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA settlement with pits, posthole structures, and a three-sided ditched enclosure. Large assemblage of LBA pottery<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Stevenage Road Solar Farm<\/td> St Ippolyts<\/td> Geophysical survey<\/td> Large D-shaped enclosure with roundhouses and associated features<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Hitchin Grade Separation<\/td> Hitchin<\/td> Excavation<\/td> E-MIA occupation including 4-post structures and intercutting pits <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Park Farm Industrial Estate<\/td> Buntingford<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA-MIA occupation and trackways. EIA cremations and inhumations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Howe Dell School Playing Filed<\/td> Hatfield<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Possible LBA fled system ditches <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Stocks Golf Course<\/td> Aldbury<\/td> Excavation\/Publictaion<\/td> LBA occupation features with a well dated group of LBA pottery<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Herts<\/td> Gadebridge<\/td> Hemel Hempstead<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA settlement with multiple structures and a cremation cemetery<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Norfolk<\/td> National Mapping Programme <\/td> <\/td> Aerial Photography <\/td> Synthesis of results of The National Mapping Project for the Norwich, Thetford and A11 Corridor, and Results of the Thetford Growth Point<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Norfolk<\/td> Bacton to King\u2019s Lynn Gas Pipeline<\/td> <\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Scattered traces of LBA to MIA settlement, notably at Weasenham Clumps; Cromer Road, Antingham; Spa Lane, Oulton and Foxley Road, Foulsham<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Bloodmoor Hill<\/td> Carlton Colville<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA settlement with post-built roundhouses, 4-post structures and other pits, posthole and other settlement features. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Flixton Park Quarry<\/td> Flixton<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Extensive LBA to EIA settlement with multiple post-built roundhouses, 4- and 6-post structures and other settlement features.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Hartismere High School<\/td> Eye<\/td> Excavation<\/td> LBA-EIA settlement with post-built roundhouses, pits and postholes. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Westley Hall Farm<\/td> Westley<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA pit alignment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Liberty Village, RAF Lakenheath<\/td> Eriswell<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA settlement with ditches and large a pit cluster continuing over 70 pits <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Land East of Warren Hill<\/td> Saxmundham<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA open settlement with two roundhouses and scattered pits. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Morland Road<\/td> Ipswich<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Small MIA open settlement with artefact rich pits and radiocarbon dates, <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Days Road <\/td> Caple St Mary<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> LBA and MIA settlement. Scattered LBA pits on the clay and MIA curvilinear enclosure with internal roundhouse and associated settlement features. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Recreation Way<\/td> Mildenhall<\/td> Excavation<\/td> Part of a large MIA rectangular double-ditched enclosure defined by two massive ditches with associated pits and other occupation features. Large LBA pit also recovered. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Chalkstone Way<\/td> Haverhill<\/td> Excavation<\/td> MIA open settlement on the clay with roundhouses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Suffolk<\/td> Ingham Quarry<\/td> Fornham St Genevieve<\/td> Excavation\/publication<\/td> Extensive MIA settlement with scatted clusters of pits and postholes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n Assessment of progress on research topics proposed in 2011<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Dating and chronology<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Transitions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Social organisation and tribal polities<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Regional difference <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Finds studies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Settlement types<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The agrarian economy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Manufacturing and industry<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Future research topics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Field boundaries and field systems<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Hillforts, ringworks and other \u2018aggrandised\u2019 enclosures <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The form, size and configuration of settlements<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Relationships between settlements <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Clayland settlement and exploitation <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The characterisation, production, distribution of artefacts <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Burial and the treatment of human remains<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Depositional practices<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nReferences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n